


A New Kind of Ending

by yourlibrarian



Series: Reviews [23]
Category: The Avengers (Marvel Movies)
Genre: Avengers: Endgame (Movie) Spoilers, Gen, Meta, Reviews
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2019-05-01
Updated: 2019-05-01
Packaged: 2020-02-15 19:03:21
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 4,029
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/18675628
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/yourlibrarian/pseuds/yourlibrarian
Summary: TOTAL AND COMPLETE SPOILERS





	A New Kind of Ending

### A different sort of film

The early scenes with Natasha coordinating the Avengers, and Steve holding group counseling meetings, made me really happy. It made me think that this was going to be a film concerned with character development and emotional fallout, and it really was. The plot to reverse what Thanos had done was at its center, but it was as much to give the characters something to do than to drive the film. And even that defeat was, in many ways, yet another form of emotional catharsis rather than just the "stop the baddies" theme we had in Infinity War. That conflict is, after all, at the heart of superhero films, but the difference is in how a film goes beyond it.

And this is one reason that I think Endgame broke new ground in the genre, not unlike how Skyfall did for Bond films. Logan was lauded for being a character drama, one about the end of the life for superheroes -- not as battle casualties but people who have aged and are transitioning in their lives just like anyone else. And while Endgame could not do so in the same way (being, after all about rather a LOT of people), it was in its own way a "Logan" film. What was the end if not the difference in the final years of Natasha Romanov, Tony Stark, and Steve Rogers? About the transition from the "older" generation to the newer one? About, in Thor's unusual long-lived case, of a new phase in one's life?

It also struck me that people going to see the movie for battles and special effects (and there are a lot of them) were likely to be disappointed in it. The movie had these things, obviously, but I think few would argue that they were front and center. This difference was telegraphed by the early scene of Thanos being hunted down and quickly amputated and decapitated by our heroes. He had ceased to be a threat, these were only empty gestures at this point. The task ahead was different.

This movie was, instead, for the transformational fans who have long loved genre fiction that tends to prioritize others things -- such as action, and battles, and institutional as opposed to personal dramas. Those fans tried to give it the emotional depth and character explorations they often lack. The movie could never do the same as 50,000 words of fanfic, but it had emotional beats everywhere, and a lot of scenes that addressed things fans craved, even if not every fan's wishes would be met.

I remember thinking at one point, probably when all the superheroes appear as a massive cavalry, "I love all of these characters." And I recognized that as the mark of a good canon, because it's something I tend to feel for few of them. Buffy and Star Trek:TOS have been among them.

I see Endgame's purpose as a form of audience diversity as well –- one where the genre grows and can excel in not just adding characters so that all in the audience can see themselves, but also by expanding storytelling for those of us who are craving things we haven't seen.

There are other ways in which Endgame stood out as a film landmark. When I saw the credit roll of an amazing list of actors, I thought that there has never been a film with a cast like this in cinematic history. In the 1970s there was a trend for blockbusters with high profile casts -- A Bridge Too Far, Towering Inferno, etc. In more recent years one has been most likely to see these all-star casts in voice acting for animated films. Part of it is just the decline of star power, meaning fewer to go around. But as the credits rolled for Endgame you saw an assembly of people who have been A listers or arthouse stars for decades, combined with people who have been the stars of this century, combined with people who became stars because of their roles in the MCU. Just think of how many Oscar nominees (if not winners) are in that list. And as the final images rolled of the 2012 Avengers, complete with actor signatures, it was like a statement that these actors would forever be known as embodying these characters. And given the financial impact of this film and this franchise, such a statement is likely 100% true. What else could ever top this in terms of audience reach?

### Audience reactions

This was a movie I saw in a crowd, and so there were actually crowd reactions that I usually don't experience when watching one. Some surprised me because they were absent, others when they happened.

There were no cheers for Stan Lee's cameo. I don't know if it was because people didn't recognize him (it did go by quick), or because it was a sad moment (was it his last?) or because it wasn't one with a lot of impact as others have had. I was ok with this. I think the montage before Captain Marvel had way more impact, as did the tribute to him in the Into the Spiderverse credits. But I found it interesting to note.

There were also no cheers in the moment when all the female characters banded together to support Captain Marvel. Even if we'd already gotten a nod to it during Infinity War (one of my favorite moments), I thought that it was still a good one, and was disappointed in the audience for not supporting that. I feel that the movie also proposed women are the future. Who are the children? Scott's Cassie, of course, but it's also his daughter that we see Clint teaching in the very first scene. And Tony, too, has a daughter. It was more subtle than Steve passing on the shield to Sam, but I think it was still there.

I particularly liked that Pepper was finally seen as Rescue. Part of this was undoubtedly the practical purpose of having her on the battlefield when Tony falls. But I felt it said more. Pepper was the first lead female character in the MCU. And I remember that there was a ton of response to her and the Tony/Pepper ship at the time This was before I'd even watched any of the MCU movies (that took until 2012). Because I read a lot of Tony-centered fic, I see Pepper often, and it seems to me she has been embraced even when not paired with him. Even when she's sidelined in a story, she is almost always acknowledged. And when she does share the stage it's as a warrior of the executive suite, an ultimate resource in ways that JARVIS can't be. But she's never been a "superhero" until now, her armor and battles have been different. She's not just portrayed as support for Tony but a capable woman who makes a difference in all the difficult ways of managing, not just SI, but politicians and support personnel and knowing the right things to do at the right time.

I wouldn't have had much of a problem with her continuing only in that role, except that we wouldn't have seen it in Endgame, where we didn't even get to see her as a mother. Instead, we saw her become present in all parts of Tony's life as we would never have seen were people such as Ike Perlmutter still calling content shots at Marvel. The post-Perlmutter years have been like the Title IX for female characters. It's still halting progress, but it's there.

I think some might argue that this was negated by Natasha's death. But really it is Bruce whose story is still ahead of him. We see that Steve has lived his life, Tony and Natasha are gone, and Clint had already retired once, he almost certainly will this time. And I think that Natasha's arc had a satisfying conclusion. She spent a lot of time trying to balance her ledger and in the end she makes one more sacrifice, seeing in Clint what he can't see in himself anymore, a perfect 360. It made sense that of all of them, these two would end up with the soul stone. There could be no greater emotional resonance in a team than this one. 

The downside is that, as her death comes in the middle of the film rather than the end, it's easier to be forgotten compared to the focus on Tony's. I saw that there were explanations that she had always operated in the shadows where Tony was a global figure. There's that too. The problem is always that if you have one woman or even just a minority of women in a group, the loss of any one of them plays glaringly into problematic tropes. But I felt that if her character was to have an ending here that it was a satisfying one. She died for her family every bit as much as Clint would have.

Also, I think it shouldn't be overlooked that in this film Nebula becomes a major character and has a sort of redemption arc that Natasha herself would understand well (even if the details were more personalized). There is a baton being passed here.

There was applause at the end of the movie, as the titles began to roll. I'm trying to remember when I last saw that. However, I rather expected to hear it again as the credits rolled with their special actor tributes. But perhaps because 80% of the crowd was leaving during it, there weren't.

The character I saw people most respond to? Peter Parker. He has but a few lines and maybe 10 minutes of screen time in this movie. But as all the characters appeared to rescue our beaten down heroes, people clapped as the Guardians appeared but cheered as Peter swung in and removed his mask. 

People cheered again when he and Tony hugged. I didn't think the two could have a more tearful scene than when Peter died in Pt. 1. I was wrong. I cried again here, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone.

One review bit I picked up suggests [it was pretty universal](https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/717246092/avengers-endgame-brings-marvel-saga-to-close-with-epic-three-hour-film?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=movies): "I saw "Endgame" with a theater full of critics, and the sniffles - my God, the sniffles - also the knowing chuckles and eventually the cheers when the big showdown arrives, as it inevitably must."

Obviously people were crying when Tony died. I was most affected by Rhodey, probably because I love Tony and Rhodey's friendship. They didn't have much interaction in this film, but I was ok with that, because I feel it's important for Rhodey to be his own character and not Tony's sidekick. And I feel that Rhodey has had good roles in this pair of films, particularly Endgame (which says something given that screentime has been so splintered among so many). But yes, it was very important for me to see Rhodey there, the first at Tony's side.

### What I've realized

I love Tony Stark. I always liked Tony Stark -- smart assed brilliance is like kryptonite for me in general, and who could argue about Tony having a lot of fun dialogue? But there are, after all, many MCU films he isn't in (maybe most of them by now) and I've watched them all. But now, he's human in a way I haven't seen before.

Fanfic has portrayed him imperfectly, as it often does for many characters (IMO). There's too much triviality (relying on catch phrases and actions), too much sentimentality, too much emphasis on part of him compared to all of his sides. But I realized in this film that of all things, fanfic has often wronged him by portraying him as bad with people.

He's not. Tony isn't just a survivor because he's a clever engineer and brilliant scientist. He also learns how to deal with people completely different from himself and is able to like them and be cared for in return. What else can you say about that opening scene with him and Nebula, a character who really has been "bad with people"? Of course, at this moment in time the two have so much in common -- grief stricken, defeated, marooned, in danger of dying. Both are certainly pragmatic enough to join forces and determined enough to pursue a potentially hopeless goal. 

But what do we first see them doing? Playing a game with what little they have, and Tony encouraging her to have fun. They both know they're likely lost, that he is dying (who knows what it would take to kill Nebula by degrees -- but presumably she too must eat, drink, and breathe). He does what he can for her, and she, in turn, treats him gently and with dignity. 

Is he angry when he returns? Sure. Until then he didn't know just what level of disaster happened in his absence. His own failure sits heavy on him again -- among his first words to Pepper are that he "lost the kid", though it's been months and he didn't even know if Pepper was alive. It's striking to see him emaciated and hardly surprising that he retreats with her to first recover, and then move on as everyone else has to. Unlike, say, Natasha, he's fortunate enough to have someone to do that with.

Tony has also had to deal with more children than anyone onscreen -- even Clint and Scott who have stood alone as parents until now -- Harley, Peter, and now at last, a daughter. We get to see bits of Tony as an actual parent. It's clearly another role that he's thrown himself into. I determine that not because we don't see him at work (surely he and Pepper are both on vacation, or at least off duty when the others visit), but because of the sort of place they've built for themselves. It is the antithesis of Stark Tower, the Malibu mansion, or even the mansion from the comics. It is meant to be simple, small scale, and private. It is the opposite of Tony's own childhood.

I am assuming that the teenage boy at Tony's funeral scene, standing near the Guardians and Maria Hill, is Harley. If so, that's another little gift to many Tony fan writers who assumed he had always stayed in touch and helped with Harley's future. And another reminder that Tony creates relationships with people.

It's probably not surprising that Tony's pretty great with his kid. But it is something else that really got to me: Tony looks old. (Not ancient, just his age). While his abilities haven't slowed down, thanks to his suit, his environment signals to me that he recognizes that his life is in a different phase. It makes him seem more mortal, more vulnerable, our time with him more precious. 

He also seems to feel it, as he explains to Steve about letting bygones be bygones. And he clearly has; it isn't just setting their differences aside to take on a challenge together. (Surely Stony fans must have been thrilled by what they were given in this film – America's ass indeed…)

Tony meeting Howard seemed a little indulgent, though not more so than Steve's storyline with Peggy. Mostly it relates to the issue of age again for me. Here he's older than Howard, and farther along in his life, already a parent. As a friend of mine said recently, when I noted that I am older now than my mother was when my father died: "They're always older to us." Yet here it's reversed. Really, if anything telegraphed the fact that Tony would die it was this scene. But I'm not sorry, especially since I got to see Jarvis. I still miss Agent Carter.

The movie does a great job with Steve's aging at the end, no doubt a combination of CGI and makeup. But there's nothing like the real thing to convey that growing ephemerality, the knowledge that someday this must end. And I will miss Tony Stark.

Undoubtedly the movie contrasts Steve's and Tony's lives in this film. While we don't see Happy until the funeral, at least the other central people in Tony's life are still alive, unlike with Steve who has lost person after person, as well as his whole way of life. It's a lot easier for Tony to move on -- to perhaps even have the excuse to slide away from public life and from the hero business. Steve can't. As was implied in Age of Ultron, what is a soldier who has no battle to fight? He seems to take on Sam's, helping others to recover. He bolsters up Natasha, his remaining friend, who has lost everyone else she was close to. 

Is it "fair" that Steve gets to live a whole life while Tony's gets cut short? I don't know -- we don't actually know what Steve ends up doing in his life or how many years he's actually lived, but I find it difficult to believe he could easily stand by while things go so wrong in so many ways over time. Surely changing Peggy's future would have had a big impact on the timeline. Could he have allowed Bucky to go on as the Winter Soldier? I don't think we know enough to answer any of it. (I gather there will be a Sam and Bucky TV season, which I definitely look forward to). But certainly Steve is ready to pass on the shield, so maybe that's answer enough.

I thought it was interesting to have the nostalgia of his and Peggy's song playing over the early credits, as if signifying that these characters' stories are also now slipping into the past. Certainly the lack of mid and end credit scenes seems to support the idea of the closed chapters, as was the clang of Iron Man forging a suit at the very end.

### Plotholes

The biggest plothole to me was no one questioning Nebula's absence as Bruce attempts to use the gauntlet. I'm assuming that Rhodey didn't realize anything was wrong and that she returned at the same time as everyone else because of time passage handwaving. But what about after that? All these people were strangers to her, but not her to them (certainly not Tony). She could have just been overlooked in the shuffle of activity. But at that particular moment? Seems pretty odd.

The second was the inconsistency in the way infinity stones are handled. In Guardians it's revealed that Peter is only part-human, and that's why he wasn't killed instantly by the power stone. We also in Avengers 1, see the Tesseract handled with care, not being touched, though it's less surprising that Thor and Loki do given that they are not human. But here we see the Ancient One handing the Time stone to Bruce, and for that matter, previously Stephen to Thanos. Is it only the power stone that can't be touched? And what's the difference between characters carrying the gauntlet and putting it on?

Speaking of, if Thanos had destroyed the stones days or weeks ago, why is he still wearing the gauntlet when the Avengers arrive?

I fail to see how the limited time travel portal was able to transport all of Thanos troops and ships to the future. 

Also, while I get that Gamora was the Gamora from 2014, is she missing because Tony snapped all of Thanos' people away? And if she could continue her life by a time jump, could Natasha? This would seem to negate the soul stone's price.

If it was that easy to get the Aether out of Jane, why didn't Asgard do that in Thor 2?

It had been assumed that the manacles and gag Loki was wearing at the end of Avengers blocked his magic. But he demonstrates his (either illusion or shapeshifting) ability while wearing them. And it's suggested that Thor sticks on the gag just to shut him up. And they sure don't stop him from utilizing the Tesseract. So it's just more evidence that Loki was going where he wanted to go. Also that, contrary to speculation, his back was not broken by the Hulk any more than Thor's was in Thor 3.

How did all the returned heroes get to NY so quickly? It's been, what, 20 minutes since they were all brought back (in many different places). Stephen Strange can teleport all the way across the galaxy? I'm going to assume that at least part of this was Wong rounding up the sorcerer teams to prepare for transport but, yeah, wayyyy too short a time frame.

Where did Valkyrie dig up a Pegasus from? I realize she's had time to raise one, but still, it's not like we saw any being loaded onto the refugee ship.

### Other stuff

I saw that there was, in the end credits, a reference to Elvis copyright which made me go "Eh?" Was Elvis in the final fight scene? I mean, he might have been, who wasn't? I also didn't catch Ross' appearance.

One person who wasn't was Loki. As a Frostiron shipper, I obviously would have loved to see more of a moment for him in this. I felt better about his disappearance with the Tesseract because clearly that opens up an entirely new timeline for him, just as Steve's reveal about Bucky to his double, and various other things do. But we'll see. I have no doubt that fans will find a way to make the most of that tidbit.

I was so happy to get a scene with Frigga though, her longest in the whole MCU canon.

As little as I know about the Marvel comics verse, even I could appreciate bits in the film such as Steve's "Hail Hydra" line and his ability to use Mjolnir. I would think its sudden absence is another big timeline change, but then Steve was carrying it with him when he traveled back to return the stones. So he might well have returned it as well. The movie is also rife with dialogue callbacks to earlier films.

The Ancient One knew about Stephen's future, presumably because she knew he'd be with her at the moment of her death. And I guess she either just happened to be visiting the New York sanctum or else knew of the coming invasion and was there on purpose.

I loved seeing Wanda return and really get a chance to attack Thanos. 

Such an interesting bit when Nebula kills herself. She knew Gamora wouldn't and did what was necessary, but that was also an act of self hatred.

### Big Implications

Aside from all the questions about what Steve's failure to return to 2023 (which means that the entire MCU will now be set in our future going forward) means for timelines, the really big issue is what's going to happen to a world which had begun to adjust society to make up for its losses just when everyone who left returns again (presumably in the places where they left -- though I'm guessing many of those who were in transit at the time will die yet again). 

After all, it's far easier for a world to scale down suddenly than to scale up suddenly. By now some people have started new families, moved to new places, retrained for new jobs (given all the direly needed roles to be filled), inherited property and funds, invested in new businesses, and abandoned a lot of properties, belongings, and even institutions. Some will have been happy certain people were lost in the snap (such as abusive parents or spouses) or have gained new opportunities. So what happens when all these people return and must be fed, housed, employed, and, very likely, counseled in turn? What will happen to all those memorials? 

What's more, who's going to have to answer for all the unilateral decisions made by a handful of people? If the Sokovia Accords tore apart the Avengers before, how can they defend the massive impact their actions have had which they took without consulting anyone?

I suspect there are a lot of dark fanworks in our future...


End file.
